Subscribe

September 08, 2011

Not Genocide, but Capital Punishment

To follow up on yesterday’s post on the judgment of the Canaanites, here’s the summary of Clay Jones’s article in the Christian Research Journal, “Killing the Canaanites” (divided into paragraphs by me):

The “new atheists” call God’s commands to kill the Canaanites “genocide,” but a closer look at the horror of the Canaanites’ sinfulness, exhibited in rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, reveals that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but capital punishment. After all, the Old Testament unequivocally commands that those who do any one of these things deserves to die.

Also, God made it clear in His conversation with Abraham regarding the Canaanite cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that He knows who would or would not repent, and in the case of those cities, not one person would heed the warning and even Lot’s family had to be forcibly pulled away from the coming destruction.

In Leviticus 18 God then warns Israel that if they commit similar sins that the land would similarly “vomit” them out. Later when Israel disobeys God and allows the Canaanites to continue to live among them, the corruptive and seductive power of Canaanite sin results in the Canaanization of Israel. Subsequently, God sent prophets to warn Israel of their coming destruction, but they didn’t repent and God said that they became “like Sodom to me” and He visited destruction on Israel for committing the same sins.

This again reveals that God’s motive isn’t genocide, but capital punishment. That we commit similar sins today renders us incapable of appropriate moral outrage against these sins and thus we accuse God of “genocide” to justify our own sinfulness.

Another point from the article that supports yesterday’s post about God driving the Canaanites out in order to protect the development of Israel as a new country in covenant with God:

Also, this wasn’t the entire destruction of a race as God didn’t order that every Canaanite be killed but only those who lived within specific geographical boundaries (Josh. 1:4). Canaanite tribes (especially the Hittites) greatly exceeded the boundaries that Israel was told to conquer.

Comments

Isn't Clay Jones the guy who, on STR's radio show, said something like, "Trust me, you do NOT want to be around animals that are used to having sex with people." So I guess that's why the animals had to be killed.

And now Clay Jones is telling us that it's not genocide if you deserve it.

The only agenda that would allow for that is the seeking of the truth. I have a sneaking suspicion that with our friend Malebranche there is another agenda in play. When one is convinced that he is already in possession of the truth, why seek it or question the line of reasoning one thinks led him to it. I think that we are laying siege to a powerful fortress whose walls are difficult to breach and many battlements to retreat to. What our friend doesn't understand is that his defenses are also his prison that is short on resources.

Louis,
I don't mind that Malebranche has a different opinion, I just want to know what it is and the justification behind it. If his opinion is that God really didn't actually instruct the Israelites to do what the text suggests, it would be good to know his justification for concluding this. Until he responds, we can only speculate.

I wonder how much traction the kidnapping scenario holds in view of rendition? It is conceivable that in some instances it might be kidnapping. Of course, I'm sure that you meant within the bounds of borders and local laws that the government is within its rights to patrol and enforce laws in.
But then again, if the laws of the land are such that they stand against fundamental moral principles and the government is engaging in crimes against humanity, maybe then it may also be kidnapping as innocent people who oppose an unjust regime are hurled into modern day dungeons. It can sometimes be a fine line, but only so with proper justification.

My only purpose is to make the point that it is not kidnapping if the party deserves that punishment from the proper authority. Malebranche scoffed at this idea, basically saying that whether or not a person deserves actions from an authority has nothing to do with whether or not the actions were right. But this is false, as the kidnapping example illustrates.

The fact is that words matter, and just as it's not kidnapping when the government rightfully puts someone in prison, so it's not genocide when God renders capital punishment against the Canaanites.

Now Malebranche can think that the account in the Bible is false and a cover-up, but if one is taking the Bible at its word--or just evaluating it on its own terms, what it describes is a judgment against the Canaanites by God, not genocide.

I think one could say, "Yes, if the Bible is telling the truth in all things, God was justified and did the right thing. However, I suspect that it's really just a cover-up of what really happened. Really, the Israelites wanted to steal their land, so they made up this story to justify their actions."

But one can't say that the Bible itself describes genocide.

A person who said what I suggest above would be making up his own story, but at least he would be clear about what the Bible actually says. Then the argument would be moved towards the right place: What evidence do you have that the secret story you imagine is the one that actually happened rather than the one recorded in the Bible?

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like Numbers 33 is saying that the Israelites are to drive out the Canaanites. It says nothing about slaughtering them or clubbing their children over the head. (That, I think, comes from Malebranche's favorite Psalm which we have discussed elsewhere.)

Given that the land had belonged to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before Jacob's hosts in Egypt decided to imprison and enslave his descendants, you could look at the whole exercise as evicting squatters. Granted, no one today would recognize a 400 year old claim to a piece of property...but God, for one, did acknowledge it.

What is NOT described, at least not in Numbers 33, is genocide. It's not even killing. You don't even have cide, forget about the geno. What you've got there, at worst, is ethnic cleansing, though it is actually, as I said, an eviction.

Now it is true that some of the squatters resisted in their eviction, and violence ensued. I could be wrong, but God's commands regarding the violently recalcitrant squatters varied case-by-case. I don't think there was a general command to slaughter everyone.

You do have killing described earlier in Numbers 31 when the Israelites met up with the Midianites. In this case:

There has been a longstanding feud between these Midianites and Israel. Balaam the prophet stood as a central figure in that.

God commands vengeance against Midian for this.

Moses commands that the Israelites go to war to execute this judgment.

The Israelites kill every man who raises a sword against them. There is no indication that Moses ordered this ahead of time.

They spare some women, boys, girls and livestock. There's no indication that this is in violation of any of Moses' prior or standing orders.

Moses subsequently orders that these captives be killed (except for the virgin girls).

Moses has a two-fold motive: first to complete the revenge against Balaam, second to prevent disease.

What we don't have in this passage is God commanding this particular form of vengeance. Now, to be sure, when God demanded vengeance, He probably wasn't asking Moses to send a strongly worded letter to the kings of the Midianites. But it is not obvious that everything that happened with the Midianites was on explicit orders from God. At least, that's not what Numbers 31 says. Most of the explicit orders came from Moses. Though it is true that God put Moses in charge.

"After all, the Old Testament unequivocally commands that those who do any one of these things deserves to die."

The only crime for which there is an unequivocal call for execution is murder, the crime for which there is no mitigation or alternative, as per:

God: "You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death." Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm